Research – Library of Professional Coachinghttps://libraryofprofessionalcoaching.com
Coaching Articles and ResourcesWed, 13 Dec 2017 20:45:17 +0000en-UShourly1https://wordpress.org/?v=4.9.152727354Client-Led Consolidation of Learning and Review of Return on Investmenthttps://libraryofprofessionalcoaching.com/research/roi/client-led-consolidation-of-learning-and-review-of-return-on-investment/
https://libraryofprofessionalcoaching.com/research/roi/client-led-consolidation-of-learning-and-review-of-return-on-investment/#respondThu, 29 Jun 2017 15:49:59 +0000http://libraryofprofessionalcoaching.com/?p=12583“Bill, I want to renew our engagement because I find value in our work together. It’s been good–I know we did a lot in the last year, but I just can’t remember what we did. ”

Early in my coaching career, at the end of a year of coaching, a client who had some extraordinary transformations in confidence, career, and income, said almost exactly that to me. I was, frankly, momentarily stunned. The differences in this client’s life were truly momentous and unmistakable—at least I had thought they were. I took a deep breath and offered a short overview of where I thought he was when he started and what I saw regarding some of the goals he set and achieved. “Wow!” he responded, “I felt like we did a lot—and we did a lot more than I remembered by far. I guess I’m doing even better than I thought I was.”

Often, when we as coaches do our work well, even the clients we have who gain the most powerful outcomes are only partially aware of their accomplishments—unless we draw their attention to the changes they’ve made and the outcomes they’ve created. Their growth is so organic, so natural, that they don’t realize how far they’ve traveled.

But this knowledge is important to the client. Experience suggests being clear about their accomplishments makes it easier for clients to continue them, for clients to have confidence in their new capabilities, and for clients to build future habits on top of new habits. More, when clients know what they’ve done, they can more easily see what needs to be done next—which is the basis of the conversation about renewing a coaching engagement.

To support clients in consolidating their learning, I suggest they write short answers to these questions:

As a result of my coaching work, what new thoughts or ideas do I have?

As a result of my coaching work, what new actions have I been taking?

As a result of my coaching work, what outcomes have I created or contributed to?

]]>https://libraryofprofessionalcoaching.com/research/roi/client-led-consolidation-of-learning-and-review-of-return-on-investment/feed/012583Development of Coaches: VII. Are There Any Differences between Personal and Organizational Coaches?https://libraryofprofessionalcoaching.com/research/coaching-surveys/development-of-coaches-vii-are-there-any-differences-between-personal-and-organizational-coaches/
https://libraryofprofessionalcoaching.com/research/coaching-surveys/development-of-coaches-vii-are-there-any-differences-between-personal-and-organizational-coaches/#respondMon, 17 Apr 2017 20:04:20 +0000http://libraryofprofessionalcoaching.com/?p=12185This report is the seventh in a series that convey and interpret results from two versions of a questionnaire that was initially prepared by the Development of Coaches Research Collaborative in cooperation with the Collaborative Research Network of the Society for Psychotherapy Research. [Note: for those readers who are familiar with the first six reports, I recommend that you move immediately to the “focus of study” and results sections of this seventh report, given that the initial sections of this report provide background material regarding the two surveys that was already covered in the first reports.]

Critique and Comment

Before moving directly into this seventh report, I wish to honor, as I did in the fifth and sixth article, a criticism regarding this series of Development of Coaches reports, offered by my colleague, Rey Carr. He made this comment after reviewing the fourth report (on gender):

When it comes to surveys, particularly those conducted via the Internet, it makes little difference if the survey was completed “by a widely ranging group of coaches,” or by organizations with “no stake in the outcomes,” or distributed by “practitioners.” What counts is the reliability and validity of the survey.

The results of the survey are great for talking points or a place to start a dialogue about the issues raised, but they cannot and should not be understood as representative of coaches. These surveys are typically suspect when it comes to generalizing the results to the coaching industry or population. It doesn’t mean you can draw conclusions, but the data should always be accompanied by a set of “limitations” or “cautions” in using the data.

]]>https://libraryofprofessionalcoaching.com/research/coaching-surveys/development-of-coaches-vii-are-there-any-differences-between-personal-and-organizational-coaches/feed/012185Development of Coaches: VI. Does ICF Certification Make A Difference?https://libraryofprofessionalcoaching.com/research/coaching-surveys/development-of-coaches-vi-does-icf-certification-make-a-difference/
https://libraryofprofessionalcoaching.com/research/coaching-surveys/development-of-coaches-vi-does-icf-certification-make-a-difference/#commentsFri, 30 Dec 2016 20:54:07 +0000http://libraryofprofessionalcoaching.com/?p=11162This report is the sixth in a series that convey and interpret results from two versions of a questionnaire that was initially prepared by the Development of Coaches Research Collaborative in cooperation with the Collaborative Research Network of the Society for Psychotherapy Research. [Note: for those readers who are familiar with the first five reports, I recommend that you move immediately to the “focus of study” and results sections of this sixth report, given that the initial sections of this report provide background material regarding the two surveys that was already covered in the first reports.]

Critique and Comment

Before moving directly into this sixth report, I wish to honor, as I did in the fifth article, a criticism regarding this series of Development of Coaches reports, offered by my colleague, Rey Carr. He made this comment after reviewing the fourth report (on gender):

When it comes to surveys, particularly those conducted via the Internet, it makes little difference if the survey was completed “by a widely ranging group of coaches,” or by organizations with “no stake in the outcomes,” or distributed by “practitioners.” What counts is the reliability and validity of the survey.

The results of the survey are great for talking points or a place to start a dialogue about the issues raised, but they cannot and should not be understood as representative of coaches. These surveys are typically suspect when it comes to generalizing the results to the coaching industry or population. It doesn’t mean you can draw conclusions, but the data should always be accompanied by a set of “limitations” or “cautions” in using the data.

]]>https://libraryofprofessionalcoaching.com/research/coaching-surveys/development-of-coaches-vi-does-icf-certification-make-a-difference/feed/111162Development of Coaches: IV. Does Age Make A Difference?https://libraryofprofessionalcoaching.com/research/coaching-surveys/development-of-coaches-iv-does-age-make-a-difference/
https://libraryofprofessionalcoaching.com/research/coaching-surveys/development-of-coaches-iv-does-age-make-a-difference/#commentsThu, 15 Sep 2016 19:19:07 +0000http://libraryofprofessionalcoaching.com/?p=10542This report is the fifth in a series that convey and interpret results from two versions of a questionnaire that was initially prepared by the Development of Coaches Research Collaborative in cooperation with the Collaborative Research Network of the Society for Psychotherapy Research. [Note: for those readers who are familiar with the first four reports, I recommend that you move immediately to the “focus of study” and results sections of this fifth report, given that the initial sections of this report provide background material regarding the two surveys that was already covered in the first reports.]

Critique and Comment

Before moving directly into this fifth report, I wish to honor a criticism regarding this series of Development of Coaches reports, offered by my colleague, Rey Carr. He made this comment after reviewing the fourth report (on gender):

When it comes to surveys, particularly those conducted via the Internet, it makes little difference if the survey was completed “by a widely ranging group of coaches,” or by organizations with “no stake in the outcomes,” or distributed by “practitioners.” What counts is the reliability and validity of the survey.

The results of the survey are great for talking points or a place to start a dialogue about the issues raised, but they cannot and should not be understood as representative of coaches. These surveys are typically suspect when it comes to generalizing the results to the coaching industry or population. It doesn’t mean you can draw conclusions, but the data should always be accompanied by a set of “limitations” or “cautions” in using the data.

]]>https://libraryofprofessionalcoaching.com/research/coaching-surveys/development-of-coaches-iv-does-age-make-a-difference/feed/110542Development of Coaches: IV. Does Gender Make A Difference?https://libraryofprofessionalcoaching.com/research/coaching-surveys/development-of-coaches-iv-does-gender-make-a-difference/
https://libraryofprofessionalcoaching.com/research/coaching-surveys/development-of-coaches-iv-does-gender-make-a-difference/#commentsTue, 31 May 2016 19:29:33 +0000http://libraryofprofessionalcoaching.com/?p=9928This report is the fourth in a series that convey and interpret results from two versions of a questionnaire that was initially prepared by the Development of Coaches Research Collaborative in cooperation with the Collaborative Research Network of the Society for Psychotherapy Research. [Note: for those readers who are familiar with the first three reports, I recommend that you move immediately to the “focus of study” and results sections of this fourth report, given that the initial sections of this report provide background material regarding the two surveys that was already covered in the first three reports.]

Background

Completed in 2009 by 153 coaches from throughout the world, the first survey was followed by a second version that was distributed in 2015 (with only minor editing changes) by the Library of Professional Coaching in cooperation with ITLCInsights. Fifty eight coaches provided responses to the second questionnaire — yielding a total of 211 responses to the two surveys. The time interval between the two surveys was six years, enabling us to get a preliminary sense of possible changes in coaching attitudes over this period of time, as well as a sense of stability (low levels of difference in mean scores and variance) in the attitudes of professional coaches regarding their own development.

Unlike most coaching surveys, the two surveys conducted in 2009 and 2015 were directed toward those actually doing the coaching, rather than the users of coaching services. These surveys were completed by a widely ranging group of coaches – in terms of geography, schools of coaching, age and years of experience in providing coaching services. These two surveys are also distinctive in that they have been being conducted by organizations (the Library of Professional Coaching and ITLCInsights) that have no specific stake in the outcomes, and are being distributed to practitioners at many levels of practice and status. These surveys are truly ‘”neutral” and “democratizing.”

Leaders of corporations existing in this global economy endure and face complexities of uncharted precedents and leadership is foundational to the success and sustainability of this navigational process. Transformational leadership and self-efficacy are primary constructs, which profile successful leadership and executive coaching is instrumental in defining the development of these constructs. This research project added empirical data to the inventory of knowledge of these three constructs transformational leadership, self-efficacy, and executive coaching through a quantitative study with a descriptive correlational design. The relationship was studied between transformational leadership, self-efficacy, and the propensity to pursue executive coaching. One-hundred and eighty-six respondents were surveyed with 110 respondents completing the survey. The MLQ5x and the NGSES assessment tools were utilized to assess and have respondents self-rate their transformational leadership and self-efficacy.

Four research questions and alternative hypotheses were formulated to ascertain the relationships and links between the independent variables transformational leadership and self-efficacy, and the dependent variables executive coaching. The results demonstrated relationships between transformational leadership and self-efficacy, and transformational leadership and executive coaching. Evidence was produced to support further research into these variables and their correlated relationships. Finally, the results produced original information and knowledge into understanding the variables on the propensity to pursue executive coaching. Recommendations for continued research based on this foundational study were provided.

[Note: The full dissertation is available as a downloadable document. Click on the download button below.]

Karl Mannheim wrote many books that are aligned with a sub-discipline of sociology, called the sociology of knowledge. While his books are certainly not required reading for all professional coaches, there should at least be some awareness of the challenges associated with Mannheim’s work and this sub-discipline of sociology. A few of the statements made in one of his books, Ideology and Utopia, are reviewed here, so that the reader considers his or her perspectives when reflecting on their own coaching practices

Mannheim was aligned with what sometimes is known as the Max Weber school of social analysis. Weber and Mannheim were early and mid-20th Century German social theorists who were critical of both American behaviorism and the Marxist perspective on society and culture. Even though they were anti-communist, Weber and Mannheim were certainly not welcomed by the emerging German leaders of their time. While Weber died prior to the rise of Hitler’s Third Reich, Mannhaim fled Germany in 1933 and went to England where he became a professor of sociology at the prominent London School of Economics.

Mannheim begins his analysis by noting that: “. . . the principal thesis of the sociology of knowledge is that there are modes of thought which cannot be adequently understood as long as their social origins are obsured.” (Mannheim, 1936, p. 2) It is important for us to recognize that the way in which we frame the issues we are facing is not unique to us (even if we consider ourselves to be “innovative”); rather our modes of thought are fashioned in powerful (and often unacknowledged) ways by the social system in which we operate. As coaches, it is particularly important that we challenge our clients when they ignore the influence that their own social context and culture has on the way they conceive their life and work. This is particularly the case when they serve as leaders of an organization and when their own organization is facing major challenges and the prospect of change. Under these conditions of anxiety, the leader is particularly vulnerable to the projections of those seeking his or her leadership. What the followers are projecting on the leader are modes of thought and untested assumptions about the organization (for example, about its strengths and weaknesses). As a coach to leaders faced with change and anxiety, we should not just challenge the leader’s own assumptions, but also help our client identify the modes of thought other members of the organization are pushing for (explicitly or implicity) and, as Mannheim notes, the social origins of these modes.

]]>https://libraryofprofessionalcoaching.com/research/literature-review/the-book-shelf-karl-mannheim-and-the-sociology-of-knowledge/feed/09516Professional Challenges Facing the Coaching Field from an Historical Perspectivehttps://libraryofprofessionalcoaching.com/research/history-of-coaching/professional-challenges-facing-the-coaching-field-from-an-historical-perspective/
https://libraryofprofessionalcoaching.com/research/history-of-coaching/professional-challenges-facing-the-coaching-field-from-an-historical-perspective/#respondFri, 11 Mar 2016 19:40:19 +0000http://libraryofprofessionalcoaching.com/?p=9508Coaching emerged during the postmodern period of the late twentieth century, born of a rapidly changing socioeconomic environment and nourished by the root disciplines of psychology, business, sports, and adult education. Now, approximately twenty years later, as we look forward to the professional challenges the field is facing today, we can benefit from the perspective we have gained on its short but explosive history. That history, characterized by the interaction between and the cross-disciplinary development of its root disciplines, is further complicated by the generational differences and varying professional backgrounds of its originators, as well as the changing socioeconomic conditions of the period.

The business and personal coaching field evolved during the second half of the 20th century from an intersection of people, disciplines and socioeconomic factors — characterized by generational and linked patterns of influence. Coaching entered the global mainstream at the turn of the 21″ century amidst a proliferation of training organizations, professional associations, media coverage — and the blossoming of evidence-based coaching. In this article I will share two observations about the coaching field, look at three challenges facing the coaching field, and ultimately describe one possible future for coaching.

TWO OBSERVATIONS ABOUT COACHING

First, coaching sprang simultaneously from several independent sources and birthplaces, and then spread through a complex and somewhat unpredictable series of relationships. This initial stage occurred during the 1960s, an era of unprecedented personal and professional exploration and growth. The Human Potential movement, a product of those times, gave us Esalen, the National Training Laboratories (NTL), Tavistock, and Findhorn, among many others, and the rapid diffusion of coaching was fueled by a series of serendipitous, interdisciplinary gatherings in the above venues. The key figures in those meetings, long before technological advances made such interaction much easier, connected through face-to-face conferences, workshops, and forums.

Interview Conducted by Bill Carrier

Bill Carrier: Thank you for joining us to talk with The Future of Coaching about the institutions of coaching from your own extensive experience! To get started, would you share a little bit about your background in terms of coaching and institutions that you’ve been involved in as you got started as a coach?

John Lazar: Sure. I think part of the background, Bill, that’s relevant is that my initial training was in psychology, including a Master’s degree in clinical psych. My orientation even before I was doing what was called ‘coaching’ was in the helping professions and enabling people to be better. I changed careers in ’83 from psychology—where I had been working with the severely and profoundly handicapped, as well as having a private psychotherapy practice—to solving human performance problems in organizations.

I found very quickly as I went out into work situations that what I was doing—augmenting process redesign, or training, or work re-engineering, any of that kind of stuff—was meant to enable and accelerate people’s learning and performance improvement and was, in fact, coaching. In the late ’70s, I studied with the founders of neuro-linguistic programming, Richard Bandler and John Grinder and their colleagues, as well as Virginia Satir for family therapy. They were providing some models for how to engage people that had a coaching component though they didn’t necessarily talk about it that way.

In the early ’80s to the early ’90s, I was working with three gentlemen from Chile: Fernando Flores, Rafael Echeverria, and Julio Olalla. At various times, they had two different companies, Hermenet and Logonet, which were doing training and development with folks about communications, sales, and things like that. There was a coaching component there.

]]>https://libraryofprofessionalcoaching.com/research/history-of-coaching/an-interview-with-john-lazar-institutions-and-influences/feed/29501The Development of Coaches Survey: III. Influence and Learninghttps://libraryofprofessionalcoaching.com/research/coaching-surveys/development-of-coaches-iii-influence-and-learning/
https://libraryofprofessionalcoaching.com/research/coaching-surveys/development-of-coaches-iii-influence-and-learning/#respondWed, 02 Mar 2016 14:06:36 +0000http://libraryofprofessionalcoaching.com/?p=9469This report is the third in a series that convey and interpret results from two versions of a questionnaire that was initially prepared by the Development of Coaches Research Collaborative in cooperation with the Collaborative Research Network of the Society for Psychotherapy Research. [Note: for those readers who are familiar with the first two reports, I recommend that you move immediately to the “focus of study” and results sections of this third report, given that the initial sections of this report provide background material regarding the two surveys that was already covered in the first two reports.]

Completed in 2009 by 153 coaches from throughout the world, the first survey was followed by a second version that was distributed in 2015 (with only minor editing changes) by the Library of Professional Coaching in cooperation with ITLCInsights. Fifty eight coaches provided responses to the second questionnaire — yielding a total of 211 responses to the two surveys. The time interval between the two surveys was six years, enabling us to get a preliminary sense of possible changes in coaching attitudes over this period of time, as well as a sense of stability (low levels of difference in mean scores and variance) in the attitudes of professional coaches regarding their own development.

Unlike most coaching surveys, the two surveys conducted in 2009 and 2015 were directed toward those actually doing the coaching, rather than the users of coaching services. These surveys were completed by a widely ranging group of coaches – in terms of geography, schools of coaching, age and years of experience in providing coaching services. These two surveys are also distinctive in that they have been being conducted by organizations (the Library of Professional Coaching and ITLCInsights) that have no specific stake in the outcomes, and are being distributed to practitioners at many levels of practice and status. These surveys are truly ‘”neutral” and “democratizing.”